On October 9, 2018 1:40:34 PM PDT, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:31:19PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018-10-09 21:26:31 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > > In-Reply-To: <20180928223240.kgwc4czzzekrp...@alap3.anarazel.de>
>> > > As discussed below (at [1]), I think we should remove $subject.
>I plan
>> > > to do so, unless somebody protests soon-ish. I thought it'd be
>better
>> > > to call attention to this in a new thread, to make sure people
>had a
>> > > chance to object.
>> >
>> > How much time would someone have to convert the timetravel piece of
>> > contrib/spi to use non-deprecated time types in order to make this
>> > window?
>>
>> "this window"?
>>
>> It's not entirely trivial, but also not that hard. It'd break
>existing
>> users however, as obviously their tables wouldn't dump / load or
>> pg_upgrade into a working state.
>>
>> But I think spi/timetravel is not something people can actually use /
>do
>> use much, the functionality is way too limited in practice, the
>> datatypes have been arcane for about as long as postgres existed,
>> etc. And the code isn't fit to serve as an example.
>>
>> In my opinion it has negative value at this point.
>
>I suppose the proposals to add the standard-conformant temporal stuff
>would make this moot, but I don't recall a complete patch for that.
spi/timetravel is just a trigger. Can be written in a few lines of plpgsql.
What's functionality of your concern here? Comparing it to actual temporal
functionality doesn't strike me as meaningful.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
